7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

DarlBundren wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:55 am
NonZeroSum wrote:With all the respect in the world you really have to get out of the habit of quoting out of context, remember seeing the forest for the trees. I will try to be clearer in my statements, but you just can’t quote the end of a sentence after ‘and’ and expect to have captured the intended meaning.
I don't think I quoted out of context. You wrote a compound sentence using “and” (P Ʌ Q) and I said that the latter part was not the main point.
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies may be both intentional, as well as accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:

As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.
[...]
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

____________
DarlBundren wrote:
NonZeroSum wrote:I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss. . .
OK, then. We basically agree about cats being a problem, but you think it would be better not to talk about it, since it's alienating (or since people are too stupid to be told all the truth – not that I disagree). . .
No, no and no! Literally the next sub-clause!
In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition.[1] A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate,[2] the latter typically a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes not said or explicit, often the case in null-subject languages if the subject is retrievable from context, but it sometimes also occurs in other languages such as English (as in imperative sentences and non-finite clauses).

A simple sentence usually consists of a single finite clause with a finite verb that is independent. More complex sentences may contain multiple clauses. Main clauses (matrix clauses, independent clauses) are those that can stand alone as a sentence. Subordinate clauses (embedded clauses, dependent clauses) are those that would be awkward or incomplete if they were alone.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause

/I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point,/ [<-- main clause] I think it’s important to /discuss/ [<-- verb] . . / [<-- sub clause]

Exactly the same as:

/My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals / [<-- main clause] and why it’s not worth our individual time /looking/ [<-- verb] after them . . . / [<-- sub clause]

One doesn't make sense without the other:

My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animal's / [with an over emphasis on] / why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them.

In context:
I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss, but the ‘why’ is the grounding of the discussion in solutions, it’s how to minimize those effects as industrious owners or if it would be better left up to charities and politicians is the conversation.

Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position which you could only really ever find grounds to agree with if you are already vegan, excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable. . . [Examples given of that alienating philosophy in action with meat eaters]
Reworded for emphasis on my specific problem with this video and philosophy:
I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss, but. . . Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position. . . [that] it would be better left up to charities and politicians. . . excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable.
___________
DarlBundren wrote:I, for one, think that it's important to talk about how to feed our pets, though, because each and every vegan/vegetarian person that I know feeds their dogs meat, and there's not much of a point in being vegan if you get a dog from a breeder and feed them meat. I think it's important to discuss this.
NonZeroSum wrote:. . .The tips that I gained from their first two videos on Cats were really useful in conversation; Domestic Cats can’t naturally eat 100% raw meat like their ancestors, so it’s fine to give them less to no meat under our appropriate care which is better again than being feral, adopt don’t buy, keep indoors.

It’s because I agree with her that carnivorous animals that don’t always crave human affection shouldn't be forced to conform to our way of life that it’s upsetting they bundled this argument.
___________
DarlBundren wrote:As for the whether vegans should have cats or let them be adopted by meat-eaters, that's another question, though. Apparently, she thinks that vegans shouldn't. I don't know. I am inclined to say that vegans would make better, more responsible owners.
[. . .]
Both, we need responsible owners and governments that acknowledge the situation. I don't know about your country, but, as I have said, we already neuter feral cats where I live.
Good I agree.

_____________
DarlBundren wrote:
NonZeroSum wrote: I know I have a different philosophy to UV and to you again, not expecting that to change dramatically but it’s good we can agree on ways to move towards more effective activism.
I am all for effective altruism, man. We disagree about what is the most effective solution. That, or we don't use the word effective in the same way. EA is mostly based on consequentialism.
Lol no, they don't own successful activism so I'm not giving up the word effective to them.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote:With all the respect in the world you really have to get out of the habit of quoting out of context, remember seeing the forest for the trees. I will try to be clearer in my statements, but you just can’t quote the end of a sentence after ‘and’ and expect to have captured the intended meaning.
We discourage people from quoting entire posts or long segments. It's best to just quote what you're replying to. Even a sentence fragment is fine.

He's trying to convince you of his point, it makes no sense to intentionally misrepresent somebody, it just messes up the conversation.
I'm sure he didn't mean to misunderstand you if he did. Just clarifying is fine.

NonZeroSum wrote:
We basically agree about cats being a problem, but you think it would be better not to talk about it, since it's alienating (or since people are too stupid to be told all the truth – not that I disagree). . .
No, no and no! Literally the next sub-clause!
It sounds like he just misread what you wrote, or it wasn't clear enough.
Which is kind of the point with UV's video for most people, so that makes this sort of ironic.

We can't really complain about people misunderstanding us when we think we were clear enough while criticizing people for saying things in a way that we think will cause misunderstanding. That's trying to have it both ways.
Clearly, understanding is in the ear of the listener (or eye of the reader) and it must be judged relative to its reception.

If UV failed at communication in this video, then NonZeroSum failed in the post, no matter how clearly we might regard either as having been by objective metrics (if such a thing is possible).

Misrepresentations are usually not deliberate. Our minds are very selective with comprehension when we think we have grasped the gist of what somebody is saying or going to say (or is about, generally). It's an obstacle to overcome in communication to break those assumptions so, in a moment of uncertainty, we can compel people to listen to what we're actually saying.

I have found this useful in debate; to present something the other might assume I believe and then crush that assumption. Once that happens, the listener becomes curious because he or she can no longer assume what I'm saying fits into a template.
This is something much harder to do in a speech without a back and forth as in a face to face discussion, because we don't always know what people will assume. We also can't always survey what has been adequate in crushing those assumptions, or what has been ignored.

NonZeroSum wrote: /My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals / [<-- main clause] and why it’s not worth our individual time /looking/ [<-- verb] after them . . . / [<-- sub clause]

One doesn't make sense without the other:

My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animal's / [with an over emphasis on] / why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them.
I don't know what you're saying really. It's not that easy to understand. Maybe you can reword it entirely?
NonZeroSum wrote: Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position
Where did she even make that latter claim? She just said she was too lazy to do all of that stuff, basically. Not that it's better not to do it or better left to the government.
I think she said pet ownership in general wasn't effective altruism, which is true.

Perhaps DarlBundren misunderstood your complaint because he interpreted the video very differently, and so the complaint you're making doesn't make sense in that context.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:07 pm
NonZeroSum wrote:With all the respect in the world you really have to get out of the habit of quoting out of context, remember seeing the forest for the trees. I will try to be clearer in my statements, but you just can’t quote the end of a sentence after ‘and’ and expect to have captured the intended meaning.
We discourage people from quoting entire posts or long segments. . .
That’s good, I said the same to Zzzzz and they rebuffed me in their trollish ways, so was slightly uncertain - http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?p=30139#p30139
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .It's best to just quote what you're replying to. Even a sentence fragment is fine.
Quote markers are good, I do think accurately quoting someone’s thesis is a skill though, one that can be learned to avoid accidently quote mining and presenting a flawed counter argument.
brimstoneSalad wrote:He's trying to convince you of his point, it makes no sense to intentionally misrepresent somebody, it just messes up the conversation.
I'm sure he didn't mean to misunderstand you if he did. Just clarifying is fine.
Agreed that’s what I hoped to do, just at longer length because my first suggestion was rebuffed.

___________________
brimstoneSalad wrote:
No, no and no! Literally the next sub-clause!
It sounds like he just misread what you wrote, or it wasn't clear enough. . .
Absolutely, that’s why I hoped a lesson in not discounting the clause or sub-clause would be helpful in knowing when to ask for clarification, not quoting one without the other again, which wouldn’t carry the same meaning.
brimstoneSalad wrote:. . .Which is kind of the point with UV's video for most people, so that makes this sort of ironic.
I’m not sure that is the case, for example:
Alex Post - 2 days ago
Jenn Righter I did watch it. I totally get the ethical issues she is grappling with, and I am glad she brought to light issues with cat ownership and feral cats. I don't disagree with any of that. However, I don't think the ultimate message was constructive. If you think otherwise, I would be happy to hear about it😄
And even if it were true, we’d still have to run a cost benefit analysis on whether it was worth putting a lot of energy into schooling people in consequentialist ethics in order to get this one point across, when not even all vegans agree with it, and there are lots of smaller steps along the way, that require a lot less energy to convince people of.

__________________
brimstoneSalad wrote:I have found this useful in debate; to present something the other might assume I believe and then crush that assumption. Once that happens, the listener becomes curious because he or she can no longer assume what I'm saying fits into a template.

This is something much harder to do in a speech without a back and forth as in a face to face discussion, because we don't always know what people will assume. We also can't always survey what has been adequate in crushing those assumptions, or what has been ignored.
Interesting, I like it.

_______________
brimstoneSalad wrote:
NonZeroSum wrote:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause

[highlighting clauses and sub-clauses in my own writing]
I don't know what you're saying really. It's not that easy to understand. Maybe you can reword it entirely?
Honestly I’m a little exhausted aha, maybe just subtleties like this are better explained in viva voice.
NonZeroSum wrote:Ochay so my one big problem with this video is all the talk about tailoring your activism to your audience and then releasing a video listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals and [with an over emphasis on] why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them, which is absolutely a minority philosophy within veganism, which in turn will absolutely turn meat eaters off to the basic compassionate individual message of go vegan for the sentient animal’s.
[...]
I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss, but. . . Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position. . . [that] it would be better left up to charities and politicians. . . excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable.
___________________
NonZeroSum wrote:Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position
Where did she even make that latter claim? She just said she was too lazy to do all of that stuff, basically. Not that it's better not to do it or better left to the government.
I think she said pet ownership in general wasn't effective altruism, which is true.
Basically I disagree with their perfectionist outlook, that if we’re not doing effective altruism why bother? Cat’s needs are complicated yes, but cats can give all kinds of people a better quality of life just through that mutually pleasant relationship. I think many people will come away from the video feeling bemused that UV who is a cat lover would turn away from adopting a cat and giving it a better life, when they can both gain so much from it.

Plus I see a 'let all predators die out' video on the cards:
Just as with her first intersectional video, it’s really meaningless to make a point of saying ‘just me’ - I’m not going to adopt another cat, because it’s totally see through and palpable that she looks down on owning cats as not a productive use of anyone’s time who could be making money and giving to charity.
_________________
brimstoneSalad wrote:Perhaps DarlBundren misunderstood your complaint because he interpreted the video very differently, and so the complaint you're making doesn't make sense in that context.
True, I’ll keep trying to clarify the best I can.
DarlBundren wrote:OK, then. We basically agree about cats being a problem, but you think it would be better not to talk about it, since it's alienating (or since people are too stupid to be told all the truth – not that I disagree). Fine, it might be true. Often, it is.
I think we should continue to debate it between vegans, but not be advocating ‘effective altruism means not adopting cats and spending lots of energy looking after them’ as the most important consideration when taking steps towards veganism. Like not making ‘checking labels for Palm Oil’ a huge priority when taking baby steps towards not consuming food you know are blatantly animal products.

We should focus on advocating for animal welfare and the abolition of animal exploitation.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm Absolutely, that’s why I hoped a lesson in not discounting the clause or sub-clause would be helpful in knowing when to ask for clarification, not quoting one without the other again, which wouldn’t carry the same meaning.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that just came across as condescending.
It would probably be better to just clarify it without all of the talk of being taken out of context.

NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm And even if it were true, we’d still have to run a cost benefit analysis on whether it was worth putting a lot of energy into schooling people in consequentialist ethics in order to get this one point across, when not even all vegans agree with it, and there are lots of smaller steps along the way, that require a lot less energy to convince people of.
I would say people need to be schooled in ethics in general, not just for this point, but for consistency and being able to communicate a framework better to skeptics who may leverage the cat paradox to their advantage.
NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm Basically I disagree with their perfectionist outlook, that if we’re not doing effective altruism why bother?
I don't think that's the message.

The message was that she doesn't feel comfortable with it and isn't willing to put in the work to resolve those problems just to have a cat, because a cat isn't beneficial enough to her to be worth that work.
NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm Cat’s needs are complicated yes, but cats can give all kinds of people a better quality of life just through that mutually pleasant relationship.
Sure, and if that's your case, you may be more willing to put in the work to make sure the cat is happy inside, and provide it food (including perhaps freegan meat) that doesn't inordinately harm the world.
NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm I think many people will come away from the video feeling bemused that UV who is a cat lover would turn away from adopting a cat and giving it a better life, when they can both gain so much from it.
How can we say how much UV thinks she gains from cats?
It seems it's less than the trouble to fix the problems. For some people, it may be more and worth fixing those issues.
NonZeroSum wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:28 pm Plus I see a 'let all predators die out' video on the cards:
Just as with her first intersectional video, it’s really meaningless to make a point of saying ‘just me’ - I’m not going to adopt another cat, because it’s totally see through and palpable that she looks down on owning cats as not a productive use of anyone’s time who could be making money and giving to charity.
She doesn't have such an attitude. Watch her previous video on adoption, where she talked about adopting vegan pets as harmless as any other hobby that uses resources or something like that.

It's not an either-or between being a stoic who never spends a dime on pleasure, and just not bothering with anything.

Also see her video to Hank Green. I don't know what it was called.

I think you're reading into it an attitude to the whole thing she just doesn't have.
I doubt she would care about somebody adopting cats, providing an engaging indoor environment, and a combo of freegan and vegan food. She just doesn't find it worth it, personally, and said she'd adopt a vegan animal so it's easier.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:26 am She doesn't have such an attitude. Watch her previous video on adoption, where she talked about adopting vegan pets as harmless as any other hobby that uses resources or something like that.
hmm I hadn't actually got round to watching the full video on cat adoption and it's really good as well as the thoughts at the end.
Like I said I will have another pet video specifically on cats coming hopefully soon, we will see and yeah that will probably be it for the pet stuff. I know it's very alienating even just within the vegan community, there are a lot of vegans who believe that it's inherently wrong to feed you know dogs and cats vegan, it's not natural that sort of thing.

So yes it's a tough thing to talk about and I guess how I feel about it is kind of like how I feel about honey, I don't really think it's something we should be focused on right now, like with honey you know we're really trying to get people to eat less animal products and I think it's easier for people to kind of connect with cows and pigs and even chickens and even fish you know, more so than thin bees maybe I'm wrong about fish maybe, maybe I don't know, but um I think it's kind of hard for people to see like what's wrong with honey exactly, I think that's a little bit more difficult particularly when a lot of people just see them as bugs, like what these aren't animals, their bugs right, um which they're not, they're insects.

Whatever I think kind of the same thing with pets right, it's so hard for just people to eat less animals, I think then putting it on the pets again, I think most people including a lot of vegans just see it as inherently wrong, like we're putting something on our pets and it's just a really difficult thing to discuss I think and it's a difficult thing to do right now, like I've spoken about it a little bit in this video but more on my video on feeding dogs and cats vegan.
I just thought all the time I was watching the 7 reasons cats are terrible pets video, in what way is it helpful to make caring for a cat look like a shitshow, by only giving all the bad reasons, when often caring for animals is a conversation starter and a way to get personally invested in all animals welfare and specifically wanting to see less starving feral cats through spading all cats.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by DarlBundren »

Oh thanks, man, I didn't know what a subordinate clause was... What an asshole. :lol:
NonZeroSum wrote:No, no and no! Literally the next sub-clause!
NonZeroSum wrote:Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position which you could only really ever find grounds to agree with if you are already vegan, excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable
I was referring to non-vegan people. You think we should not talk about these finer issues with non-vegan people, because we discourage them from becoming vegans. Is that correct? Good, that's what I was trying to say. It isn't? I apologize, then.
NonZeroSum wrote: Quoting out of context
For Christ's sake, if you have a compound sentence with a conjunction both clauses have the same importance.
NonZeroSum wrote:my one big problem with this video is all the talk about tailoring your activism to your audience and then releasing a video listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals and why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them
In other words: My one big problem is that, although she acknowledges the importance of pragmatic altruism, she has just released a video in which she lists why carnivorous animals are bad and why we should not waste our time taking care of them.

The latter part of the sentence, that you reworded as:

NonZeroSum wrote:their perfectionist outlook, that if we’re not doing effective altruism why bother?

Is not what I took from the video. At least, it was not so dogmatic.

NonZeroSum wrote:Lol no, they don't own successful activism so I'm not giving up the word effective to them.
If you call it 'effective' it can be confusing though, since EA refers to a specific set of ideas. You don't agree that associations like GiveWell are more effective than others? Cool, you could start a thread about that.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DarlBundren wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:50 am In other words: My one big problem is that, although she acknowledges the importance of pragmatic altruism, she has just released a video in which she lists why carnivorous animals are bad and why we should not waste our time taking care of them.
Did you miss the disclaimers? Wasn't it about how she didn't feel it was worth her time in order to have a cat when she can adopt a bunny or dog instead and it would be easier?
In that case, you're saving another animal from death in a shelter (like a dog) and not a cat. In either situation one will die so the other can live. You leave a dog to die by adopting a cat, you leave a cat to die by adopting a dog.
And she said that she wasn't saying other people weren't vegan for adopting a cat, and that those are some things you can do if you're industrious (implicitly, which she personally isn't industrious enough to do).
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:49 pm
DarlBundren wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:50 am
NonZeroSum wrote:My one big problem with this video is all the talk about tailoring your activism to your audience and then releasing a video listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals with an over emphasis on why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them. . .
In other words: My one big problem is that, although she acknowledges the importance of pragmatic altruism, she has just released a video in which she lists why carnivorous animals are bad and why we should not waste our time taking care of them.
Did you miss the disclaimers? Wasn't it about how she didn't feel it was worth her time in order to have a cat when she can adopt a bunny or dog instead and it would be easier?
This whole thread is a massive communication breakdown. What you quoted was Darl trying to reword my hypothesis as two independent clauses even though I keep telling them its a subordinate conjunction.

And I'm not interested in them being consistent on pragmatic altruism, I couldn't give one about how they fetishise morality, I'm interested in them being consistent on focused activism, the ideas in her video only appeal to consequentialist vegans and turn off everybody else for being a heartless applied ethic that taken to its logical conclusion wants to get rid of all predators.

Alienation and the importance of focused activism (UV video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3008&p=29818
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by NonZeroSum »

DarlBundren wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:50 am Oh thanks, man, I didn't know what a subordinate clause was... What an asshole. :lol:
[. . .]
Is that correct? Good, that's what I was trying to say. It isn't? I apologize, then.
Why the two extremes? I never want people to have to apologize to me for misunderstanding something. You have a message under your posts reading “Feel free to correct my grammar. I mean, do it. Seriously.” Yet you say you feel scolded when people give you tips on how you can use the forum tools to better effect or you use an appeal to authority on what you think is “. . .suitable for this kind of forum. Just my two cents though. . ." ". . . man. . ." :P
DarlBundren wrote:I was referring to non-vegan people. You think we should not talk about these finer issues with non-vegan people, because we discourage them from becoming vegans.
Not because I think they’re too stupid to get it, because I think the argument is not convincing as a necessary part of what it should mean to be vegan among vegans, so what evidence do we have to bear that it is good vegan outreach/advocacy?
DarlBundren wrote:
NonZeroSum wrote:Quoting out of context
For Christ's sake, if you have a compound sentence with a conjunction both clauses have the same importance.
Not in a subordinate conjunction, you’re underlining of 'and' (after I striked it out to make it more clear) show’s you have misunderstood my sentence by applying rules of international English to it, which is equally my fault for not being clear. But why you insist that I am wrong about my own intended meaning by repeatedly misquoting me and rewording my sentences is beyond me.
DarlBundren wrote:You don't agree that associations like GiveWell are more effective than others? Cool, you could start a thread about that.
I said I like the idea of GiveWell bringing transparency to charity work, I have my own complaints about a lot of charity galas and celebrity foundations. I just think we shouldn’t discount de-centralised knowing where the problems are in your community and wanting to solve them through mutually beneficial relationships that you would otherwise want to participate in as hobbies anyway like gardening.

I like giving to medical causes where you can, even though I think governments should be doing a better job of funding those things too, and I liked one of the charities that gave money directly to landowners so they could improve their education and job skills.

I would also follow movement struggles and want to give directly to wildcat unions feeding striking workers collectively bargaining for more rights.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 7 Reasons Why Cats are Terrible Pets (UV video)

Post by DarlBundren »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Did you miss the disclaimers?
Yeah, I was rewording NonZeroSum's opinion, Brimstone. Things are getting out of hand, it's time to stop. However, now NonZeroSum knows I understand his point, hopefully he understands mine, everything is fine. No hard feelings.
NonZeroSum wrote:You have a message under your posts reading “Feel free to correct my grammar. I mean, do it. Seriously.” Yet you say you feel scolded when people give you tips on how you can use the forum tools to better effect or you use an appeal to authority on what you think is “. . .suitable for this kind of forum. Just my two cents though. . ." ". . . man. . ."

It doesn't read “be rude to me, 'cause I'm not a native speaker”. Incidentally, I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to linguistics. A field, of course, that is not limited to the English language (there are clauses in mine too).

I'm interested in writing good, clear English and I like it when people correct the (countless) grammatical mistakes that I make. For example, when they tell me that in the following sentence:
NonZeroSum wrote: What you quoted was Darl trying to reword my hypothesis as two independent clauses even though I keep telling them its a subordinate conjunction.
you should use the (contracted) verb it's instead of the possessive pronoun its.

Miniboes's tips on how to use the forum tools were more than welcome, by the way. Apparently, my two cents were less valuable.
Post Reply